UK & EU Agree Post-Brexit Trade Deal

Originally Posted by jfman

It was scrutinised in line with Parliamentary processes and passed by both Houses. To redefine "scrutiny" because you don't like a law as passed is denying Parliamentary sovereignty. Is that not what we voted to get back?

Oh come on - normal scrutiny takes more than a day, more than a week, months, a Bill being rushed through in one day is not being scrutinised as it should be through each stage, the Parliamentary processes, were broken by the Speaker, so your point is moot.

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

This is an attempt to force the PM to beg the EU for something he doesn't want,it's designed to make him look like a fool,it's just an act of petty revenge.

He doesn't need any help with that, although I think it was more about stopping a no deal Brexit. Incompetent individuals are an irrelevance.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Mr K

Is this the conclusion of the Supreme Court hearing ?

The Scottish Judgment referred to "proper scrutiny". There was none.



Also the bill specifies a time limit for debate. That is denying "proper scrutiny" of any, as yet unspecified potential agreement, which will be hundreds of pages in length. It further specifies what happens if the EU(council and EU Parliament) doesn't agree to anything. How can that be remotely lawful. It is totally outside of the UKs control.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Hugh

The Benn Bill was published on the 2nd September, submitted to the Speaker* on the 3rd September, debated and passed through the Houses 4th to 6th September, Queen’s Assent 9th September - that’s 6 working days (not included is the time spent writing, agreeing, lawyers reviewing, rewriting the actual bill).

The Cooper-Letwin Bill was presented to the Speaker* on the 2nd April, introduced to the House on 3rd April, passed on the 3rd, went to the House of Lords on the 4th April, House of Lords Committee and Report Stage 8th of April, Common vote on House of Lords amendment and Royal Assent on 8th April - that’s 4 working days (again, this does not include any time spent writing, agreeing, lawyers reviewing, rewriting the actual bill).

Neither of those appear to have been "cobbled together" in one day...

*bills must be presented to the Speaker on (at least) the day before being introduced to the House

"Cobbled together" is a fair colloquialism for something that has been hurriedly put through a process.

and there is no denying that the bill was hurried. Given that the average time for a bill to go through Parliament is a year.

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/legislat...ugh-parliament

Getting a bit testy in SC today, the QC for the Irish case, getting a royal ticking off by the Lord Justices, "Don't abuse our patience." The QC is trying to bring political elements and merits of Brexit in to the court room, Lady Hale, rightfully challenges him saying this is not a matter for the court and that they are only concerned about the legal advice to the Queen to prorogue parliament.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Mick

Oh come on - normal scrutiny takes more than a day, more than a week, months, a Bill being rushed through in one day is not being scrutinised as it should be through each stage, the Parliamentary processes, were broken by the Speaker, so your point is moot.

I accept that it's not the usual practice but Parliament gets to decide. That is its role.

Originally Posted by Pierre

"Cobbled together" is a fair colloquialism for something that has been hurriedly put through a process.

and there is no denying that the bill was hurried. Given that the average time for a bill to go through Parliament is a year.

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/legislat...ugh-parliament

He said in one day - they took 4 and 6 days (not including the time to actually write the bills).

Originally Posted by papa smurf

if they can cobble together new legislation in one day,8 days gives them time to do whatever they want to.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Hugh

He said in one day - they took 4 and 6 days (not including the time to actually write the bills).

8 days should be plenty, then!

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

8 days should be plenty, then!

Yes that's at least 8 more dodgy laws they can cobble together.

There's probably a stack of bills on the speakers desk ready for every eventuality,we all know democracy must be stopped at all costs.

[1andrew1]

Wonder why all these people want Brexit?

Names that popped up in the Paradise Papers and will need to be living in a non-EU country before the EU Jan 2020 Tax Directive kicks in:

• Rees-Mogg
• Aaron Banks
• Barclay Brothers (Daily Telegraph proprietors)
• Andrea Leadsom's husband & brother in law

https://twitter.com/selzero/status/1171374980673822720

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Wonder why all these people want Brexit?



https://twitter.com/selzero/status/1171374980673822720

It's a directive, so will have had to be passed into UK law separately. That is the way EU directives work. Each nation has to pass it's own version.


Also it's an amendment of an earlier directive which.

Member States should apply these measures as from 1 January 2019.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Wonder why all these people want Brexit?



https://twitter.com/selzero/status/1171374980673822720

We’ve heard it all before

Originally Posted by Hugh

He said in one day - they took 4 and 6 days (not including the time to actually write the bills).

And one day is correct,

I don't know why you keep bringing this up as though it is false - it is not, no matter how many times you want to repeat yourself. The Cooper/Letwin Bill was introduced and passed all of it's stages in one day, no-ones arguing that the Bill was not done and got Royal Assent, in one day, not interested in this, what is at stake is that the Bills were cobbled together, and no amount of spinning this by you will change this Hugh, you are fundamentally wrong on this. Papa is right, the Bills were cobbled together.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Wonder why all these people want Brexit?



https://twitter.com/selzero/status/1171374980673822720

Your point being? I voted Brexit, but the directive most certainly doesn't affect me.

The correlation is ridiculous and typical of the mud slinging that the remainers are throwing at the Brexiteers as they become more and more desperate to overturn the democratic vote.

Shame on all their houses.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Your point being? I voted Brexit, but the directive most certainly doesn't affect me.

The correlation is ridiculous and typical of the mud slinging that the remainers are throwing at the Brexiteers as they become more and more desperate to overturn the democratic vote.

Shame on all their houses.

My comments are valid and obviously about the people I list and not anyone else. It shows why these six people are potentially pro-Brexit and why they may want us to exit before that deadline.